500 produced???

[Wakal]

So the "500 built" thing doesn't apply to Springfield Custom shop guns?

I thought there was a run of Springfield widebody .40 "TGO" specials to make his gun legal for Limited...or am I missing something?

I do that a lot....thinking, shooting...thankfully driving...

Alex

[Chuck D]

The question of HOW TGO's Springfield Widebody in 40 is deemed legal has been floating around for years.

Still haven't heard an answer.

[rhino]

I never thought about that.

[MoNsTeR]

http://www.robleatham.com/answers040716.htm

http://www.springfield-armory.com/CS.pdf

You can buy one now if you like.

I, too, have wondered how his guns are legal. I bet Springfield has made 500 of the hi-cap .45's, but don't the rules say something about changing caliber in Limited?

[eerw]

I think it might have something to do with it looking like another all steel 5" .40 cal handgun..similar to why a gun built on a caspian hi cap frame in .40 is legal..

steel frame, 5" slide. but you can't add on a ext. dustcover to mimic the other long heavy wide dustcover style guns..because no one makes an extend dustcover steel framed hi cap gun...

[Alan Meek]

The Caspian Hi-Cap frame is legal for .40 in limited due to Fred CRaig producing a complete gun to mee the required number back about 1997.

[eerw]

oops..that's right..forgot about all that and the fantom series of guns too..

[diehli]

I think it might have something to do with it looking like another all steel 5" .40 cal handgun..similar to why a gun built on a caspian hi cap frame in .40 is legal..

steel frame, 5" slide. but you can't add on a ext. dustcover to mimic the other long heavy wide dustcover style guns..because no one makes an extend dustcover steel framed hi cap gun...

And what about the 6-inch gun that he won the Limited Nats with?

This is part of my argument regarding the SightTracker stuff... still working on a reply to John Amidon and the BOD regarding how this whole "500 handguns or components" language is interpreted and applied.

[Ron Ankeny]

As we all know, the 500 applies to component parts not nrcessarily the specific gun. I would rather imagine SA has produced 500 steel hi-cap frames along the way.

[diehli]

You'd think so... that's not the way the BOD and JA are interpreting it, however. There'll be more on this once I get the email out and get a reply from someone.

[Alan Meek]

I thought it was 500 complete guns available for sale for one year. I don't have the rule book handy t verify that though.

[diehli]

"c) Any complete handgun or components produced by a factory and available to the general public for one year and 500 produced

"d) Prototypes are specifically not allowed

"e) Changing caliber from the factory standard is specifically not allowed...

"g) External modifications such as weights, or devices to control or reduce recoil are specifically not allowed"

USPSA Rule Book, 14th Edition 2001, Appendix E, pg 91-92

c-e are the ones that are important to this thread. g comes into play in some of the recent controversy.

[Ron Ankeny]

I guess I don't get it. I can have my builder put an STI slide with and XYZ barrel on a Caspian race ready frame and be L10 legal. Who could possibly care what combination of parts are used?

[diehli]

Exactly... *sigh*

[Flexmoney]

??? sigh???

What's up? Somebody say you couldn't do sumptin'?

[diehli]

This is all related to the SV non-ported hybrid barrel stuff... I'm working out this really logical and long argument in reply to JA and the BOD. I'll have more time to get it done after Tuesday (end of the quarter) and then will expect to hear back from them after Nats.

Suffice it to say for the time being, that the way you and I read the rule doesn't quite coincide with the way that the rule is officially interpreted. Not that that's a horrible thing, but it needs to be addressed in either the language used in the rule or the way the rule is applied... at least that's my take on it.

[Flexmoney]

This is all related to the SV non-ported hybrid barrel stuff...

The rule seemed pretty clear to me. The only problem I've had with it is trying to get everybody to read the whole thing...mostly the "...500 components... part of the rule.

I think that we might find that the bosses at USPSA weren't saying that the gun was a no-no. I think they were saying that they needed somebody to come forward with information that the gun/parts had complied with the rule requirement.

That could have been SV...Wil S. ...or, even a shooter that did some leg work to prove the "...500 produced..." part of the ruling.

I don't know though...I wasn't in the loop.

[Ron Ankeny]

Would that be the barrel with the sight attached and the slot in the slide. Like the one in the most recent edition of Front Sight with the "Now L10 Legal" wording?

[Chuck D]

Two things I'd virtually bet my life on:

1st. Springfield NEVER produced the required number of 40 caliber hi-cap framed PISTOLS and offered them to the general public through a dealer network. They're not even in the latest Springfield catalog. The 40 caliber gun is a "custom shop only" offered model. Closest thing to a "prototype" gun I've ever seen.

2nd: The "component" thing is strictly an issue of interperation...and a poor one at that. When I contacted USPSA to see if I could build a non-ported hybrid gun using both an SV frame and slide in 45 ACP instead of 40...I was told NO ! I could purchase ALL the components from SV with the exception of the barrel...that would come from the same manufacturer SV uses for the 40 caliber non-ported hybrid project. The only difference between the two guns is the caliber. The answer is still NO. So much for the component argument.

The problem here is two fold and to fully explain it requires some in the decision making process to admit to two things they don't want to admit to.

1. There is a "double standard" at work here.

2. Rules such as these are interpereted and applied by only one person and are subject to change at a moments notice.

Springfield supports USPSA and IPSC shooting in general and has done so for decades. They also have the greatest IPSC shooter ever on their payroll. Who is going to tell them that their equiptment isn't "rules compliant?" USPSA couldn't care less about "upsetting" Joe Average by telling them that they can't do something...they're not buttering USPSA's "Sponsorship Bread" to the degree Springfield is. This isn't a blanket indictment of either TGO or Springfield...it's simply the facts of the issue.

One guy, John Amidon shoulders the responsibility of interp. and explaining the rules to the membership. While John is an honorable guy...why is it only him? In my opinion...concentrates WAY too much power in the hands of a single person. Just think of the consequences if we trusted our City, Town and Village Governments with the same "blind" trust in only one "civil servant."

Of course, all this rules bull could be solved by utilizing IPSC Standard Division rules. You know ...the one that states "anything goes except ports,optics, comps and the gun must fit in the IPSC box."

That would be way to frigin easy.

[diehli]

This is all related to the SV non-ported hybrid barrel stuff...

The rule seemed pretty clear to me. The only problem I've had with it is trying to get everybody to read the whole thing...mostly the "...500 components... part of the rule.

I think that we might find that the bosses at USPSA weren't saying that the gun was a no-no. I think they were saying that they needed somebody to come forward with information that the gun/parts had complied with the rule requirement.

That could have been SV...Wil S. ...or, even a shooter that did some leg work to prove the "...500 produced..." part of the ruling.

I don't know though...I wasn't in the loop.

Can't use the barrel in a single stack, so the "components" language doesn't apply. Fact is that component production has no bearing on what can be used. "Production gun" is the criterion.

[diehli]

Would that be the barrel with the sight attached and the slot in the slide. Like the one in the most recent edition of Front Sight with the "Now L10 Legal" wording?

If you want to build a 5-inch gun, in .40, on a widebody frame, you can... anything else is verboten... and Schuemann can't just say "look, here's 500 6-inch .40 barrels, here's 500 5-inch .45 barrels, here's 500 6-inch .45 barrels" and they'd be approved... irrespective of whether or not they'd been around for a year, etc.

The components language is ignored.

[diehli]

1st. Springfield NEVER produced the required number of 40 caliber hi-cap framed PISTOLS and offered them to the general public through a dealer network. They're not even in the latest Springfield catalog. The 40 caliber gun is a "custom shop only" offered model. Closest thing to a "prototype" gun I've ever seen.

Agreed... a point I will be including. For that matter, Springfield never produced 6-inch .40 guns, widebody or otherwise. TGO won a Limited Nats with one.

2nd: The "component" thing is strictly an issue of interperation...and a poor one at that. When I contacted USPSA to see if I could build a non-ported hybrid gun using both an SV frame and slide in 45 ACP instead of 40...I was told NO ! I could purchase ALL the components from SV with the exception of the barrel...that would come from the same manufacturer SV uses for the 40 caliber non-ported hybrid project. The only difference between the two guns is the caliber. The answer is still NO. So much for the component argument.

It's even worse than you think... see my reply to Ron.

1. There is a "double standard" at work here.

That's what I want to deal with.

2. Rules such as these are interpereted and applied by only one person and are subject to change at a moments notice....

One guy, John Amidon shoulders the responsibility of interp. and explaining the rules to the membership. While John is an honorable guy...why is it only him? In my opinion...concentrates WAY too much power in the hands of a single person. Just think of the consequences if we trusted our City, Town and Village Governments with the same "blind" trust in only one "civil servant."

Not true... the BOD approves equipment rule interpretations.

Of course, all this rules bull could be solved by utilizing IPSC Standard Division rules. You know ...the one that states "anything goes except ports,optics, comps and the gun must fit in the IPSC box."

That's not the solution I'm looking for... at least I don't want a box that my gun has to fit into (because it won't). Otherwise, sounds good to me.

[BigDave]

It looks as though some are assuming there are dimensional differences between a .40 and .45 frame. The rule states "or", which means (1) complete guns or (2) components. I'll be SA has built 500 hi-cap 1911 frames since their introduction.

[diehli]

Side note; new rule book doesn't include this:

"e) Changing caliber from the factory standard is specifically not allowed."

[diehli]

It looks as though some are assuming there are dimensional differences between a .40 and .45 frame. The rule states "or", which means (1) complete guns or (2) components. I'll be SA has built 500 hi-cap 1911 frames since their introduction.

I hate to belabor this point, but:

THAT IS NOT HOW THE RULE BOOK IS BEING INTERPRETED!!!

The component language is being ignored, dammit!

Sorry, BD... didn't mean to pick on you, but coming back to this point again and again is frivolous, because in the case of this f@#$ing barrel, no one gives a flying mouse crap that Schuemann is the manufacturer of the "component."

It also appears that the "consensus" of the BOD (a while back, anyway) was that the purpose of the barrel was to add weight to the front of the gun... again:

Guys, let me do my thing. Once I have more info and a reply, I suggest y'all email/call your AD and bitch him out if you don't like the overall interpretation.